This
seems unwarranted
"the processes
surrounding the continued operation of IANA functions
during this
period of transition, must be carefully specified, and
managed."
because to refer to the need
for developing a plan before the development of a plan, well
frankly that's one plan too many ... but also because it is is
slightly pushy pushy towards ICANN receiving the function. But
since it is only ever so slightly pushy, and in the form of
paying lip service to good transition planning, I suppose it
is acceptable still.
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">Hi Stephanie, This is so much better than the previously drafted statement. Thank you so much for the changes. Amr On Mar 23, 2014, at 6:41 PM, Stephanie Perrin <[log in to unmask]> wrote:We have a new proposed version of the IANA transition statement. Please give us your comments by the close of business Tuesday March 25, Singapore time, so that we can send the amended version to the other groups. <Joint Statement - IANA Globalization - updated 23 March 2014-MMSP.doc> Stephanie Perrin